RSS

Monthly Archives: October 2012

Happy Halloween

Happy Halloween

It’s Halloween…lets talk about things that go bump in the night and what you need to combat them.

First, zombies.

Either through voodoo, curses, drugs or virus, the zombie is a contagious, relentless being of insatiable hunger. Be it your brains or flesh they want to eat you and even if they are classic slow shuffling Romero zombies and not the updated “all zombies move like spider man and know kung fu”, they will overwhelm you with numbers and tireless forward progression.

How to disable a zombie?  Easy enough, brain trauma.  Everything else on a zombie; organs, blood, eyes, etc are unnecessary for them to move and attack, but if you produce enough trauma to the brain they will cease to function.

How do you go about doing that?  First and foremost a firearm is a good choice.  They can fire from a distance and limit the potential for exposure of zombie juices on you which could infect you.  Also, depending on the rate of decay of a certain zombie, a .22 round can do the damage required.  They are light, small and can be kept in greater number than a larger round.

Zombies pose a unique problem.  Their very nature of infectiousness leads to an apocalyptic world.  Which also means that bullets and raw materials for reloaders will become harder and harder to come by.  With that being said, a few hand to hand combat tools will be a good idea.  These can be easily made from a sharpened pipe, or any metal that can be worked at a point.  Also, if you have a sword or ax or some other edged weapon you will be able to neutralize a zombie at close range.  With a sword I recommend a coup de grace and decapitate them (WARNING: THE HEAD WILL STILL BE ACTIVE AND DANGEROUS) and with the ax or hatched a good cleave to the skull should do the trick.  Be wary of having your hatchet becoming stuck in the skull.

If those options are unavailable a blunt heavy object like a baseball bat will suffice.  Yet be on your guard since this tactic will result in more gore and back splash of goo may come dangerously close to exposed skin or eyes running the risk of contamination.  Try to keep to aluminum bats as they are easier to clean and wood will soak up zombie goo and run further risk of contamination.

Despite what is often portrayed on television and in the movies, a bow and arrow is not a good weapon against zombies mainly because the skill needed to utilize the weapon effectively is uncommon.  Not only would you have to shoot them in the head but most likely through the eye at a distance.  So unless you are Robin Hood you might be out of luck.  Perhaps with a crossbow at closer range the bolt would be more able to do what is required.

Vampires

A legend that some trace back to Cain, and others to Judas Iscariot, vampires are long lived, blood drinking, beings with enhanced physical powers.  We’ll stick with the solid physical form ones for this example and not delve into ones that turn into bats or mist etc.

Vampires do occasionally like to turn people into vampires but it is not as prevalent as zombie contamination nor does it become automatic as vampire bites do not automatically turn one into a vampire.  With that being said, Vampires do look to non vampires as food and as such seek to exsanguinate their victims.

How to vanquish a vamp?  Unlike zombies there are a few different ways to dispatch a vampire.  First, the most effective way to kill a vampire is to stab them through the heart with a wooden stake.  Most accept that any wood will do, though those who think that vamps are cursed offspring of Cain find that wood from an Apple tree is necessary  while those who believe that Judas was the first vampire think that Aspen wood will do the trick.  The latter also would explain why some believe that vampires are allergic to silver and can be hurt by it.

But before we get to that, Vampires are probably the only monster in which a crossbow or bow and arrow would be a reasonable choice.  Aiming for the chest is a bit easier than an eye socket and if you hit the target, their black monstrous heart, the shaft of the arrow (which would need to be wooden) will eliminate your vampire issue.

So you turn into a big hairy monster every so often, who doesn’t want to run free every now and again? the

As with silver, there are several last resort ways of trying to kill a vampire.  I say last resort because they are either conflicting from the tale to tale or are in and of themselves very difficult to administer.

A bottle of holy water can be used like a hand grenade to incapacitate while you stab them through the heart.

Vampires apparently don’t like garlic…but then again…whats that gonna do for ya?

Burning a vampire to ashes will most likely do the trick but unless they are taking a bath in kerosene, what are the chances they are going to give you the time to douse them in something flammable?

Finally, decapitation has been said to work.  The only problem is, the vampire is stronger, faster and all around physically superior to regular people.  How you expect to go all Highlander on them is beyond me.

Werewolves

Lycanthropy is a little less contagious than zombies but the added perks make it not the worst thing in the world.  So you turn into a big hairy monster every so often, who doesn’t want to run free every now and again?Being bit or scratched by a werewolf may turn you into one.  Sometimes that’s all it takes, other times it has to be done at a certain time.

But, like there are bad people in the world, so to would one expect to find bad werewolves who want to eat you whole.  Werewolves have heightened animal senses and as such, getting the drop on one is notoriously difficult.  Chances are they know where you are before you know where they are.

How to vanquish a werewolf?  Silver and distance. For some reason, werewolves have a severe allergy to silver and as such will die if you can get some silver into them.  But trying to stab a werewolf with silver knife or sword will be difficult since they are so much stronger and animalistic.  That is why one should stick with a gun.

Silver is currently trading at $32 an ounce.  Since the amount of silver needed relates to the effectiveness a .45 bullet would be ideal for stopping power.  Since 1 ounce equates to approx. 28 grams and a .45 bullet is approx 15 grams you are looking at about $16 a bullet.  Not cheap to load up a magazine full of silver bullets.  I feel that the Lone Ranger benefited from low prices of sliver.

Outside of that there really aren’t that many options.  Decapitation runs the same risk here that it does with vampires and outside of silver the only thing that really effects werewolves is wolfsbane but that probably has the same efficacy of garlic to vampires.  Maybe keep some on hand but if your depending on it…good luck.

Frankenstein Monster Types

Genetically or scientifically created monsters that for some reason hate the world and want to kill everything in it.  They may be made from dug up grave pieces, genetically engineered experiments or a hodgepodge cyborg type thing with bolts sticking out of its neck.

How to stop non-mystically, non infectious, non zombie killing machines?

OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER.

A high amount of lead being sent down range at your monster will pretty much do it.  Maybe they are afraid of fire.  Let them fear the continuous spew of it from your arsenal of firearms.

Gun Control Zealots

The most insidious of all monsters.  These brainless illogical beasts function without much cognitive capacity, much like zombies, though in more of a hive mentality.  The queen usually being some rich benefactor (occasionally Mayor of New York City) who tells his drones to continue to attack and attack.

GCZ’s are like vampires and they want to suck the lifeblood out of America and its Constitution.

Like werewolves, they have heightened senses in regards to sniffing out tragedies for them to exploit, yet since they have the cognitive capacity of zombies they make illogical deductions and reasonings.

And like Frankenstein’s monster the best way to defeat them is to use a firepower they have absolutely no defense against…logic.

The GCZ hates logic and while they may thrash around initially, overwhelming logic will silence them and eventually they will combust and be no more.

 

So, with all that being said…HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 31, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Last week in Juneau Alaska, about 200 sixth graders headed to the firing range to learn about firearms.  Floyd Dryden Middle school runs a program that teaches the kids how to safely handle and shoot rifles, as well as hunting ethics, conservation and management, navigation and other outdoor skills.

But don’t misunderstand, just as the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, neither is this program.  Program Director Ken Coate stresses:

“We aren’t here to create little hunters. We’re here to teach firearm safety, firearm handling, how to treat a firearm with respect, how to keep a kid from getting in trouble with a firearm — and everything else is a side benefit.”

A side benefit.  Meaning that the most important thing and the primary purpose of this program is to instill respect for and knowledge of firearms.  I have always been a proponent of educational programs such as this so that children realize that guns in real life hold very little in common with the dramatized fiction of the movies.

With this knowledge a couple of things happen.  First, the seriousness of the matter sinks in so children understand that guns are not toys.  Secondly, the mystery around guns is removed so kids won’t be as tempted to seek them out in a home that has one.  Thirdly, if you acclimate a child in their youth with guns there is less of a likelihood that they will grow up with that irrational fear and hatred that spawns gun control zealots.

To the earlier points, the Principal of Floyd Dryden, Tom Milliron, wrote a letter to the parents of the children before the program saying:

“Students who live in homes without firearms are often exposed to firearms in their friends’ homes. They need to understand safe and appropriate behavior in these situations.”

Now, for any parent who vehemently objects, their child does not have to participate, but my question is, why would you want to hurt your child?  This is a fantastic program which teaches your child invaluable knowledge and may actually save their life.  Are anti gun zealots so conceited that they would sacrifice their children in order to maintain their own misguided self righteousness?

I don’t think any of the Alaskan parents actually objected to the program.  The previous paragraph was directed more to the other places in this country where they not only lack this program but hell would literally have to freeze over before it was allowed in their schools.  I’m thinking firstly of New York City and other North Eastern dens of gun bias.  His Mayor-ness Bloomberg’s brain would most likely explode if someone would suggest such a program in his fiefdom.  When you have as much hate in your heart as Mayor Bloomberg does then little things like sacrificing children to promote your own agenda is of little consequence.

This is the kind of program that should be everywhere in America.  Instead of having a tragedy befall a family because a kid thinks a gun is a toy or doesn’t have the proper respect for a firearm, why don’t we educate them so we avoid a tragedy in the first place?

 
11 Comments

Posted by on October 30, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Old enough to vote, old enough to fight…but forget about protecting yourself

Old enough to vote, old enough to fight…but forget about protecting yourself

That is the verdict that was rendered by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals last week.  The verdict states that the Federal Government can continue to ban the sale of handguns to 18-20 year olds.  A loophole does exist stating that a parent can gift such a weapon to their children.  And in open carry states that do not require a permit or constitutional carry states, that 18-20 year old can carry said weapon.

Let’s put aside that little loophole and I say loophole in the best possible way since I feel this ruling is completely unconstitutional.

Things you can do before you are 21:

  • You can legally drive a 2 ton vehicle that can go over 100 miles per hour that statistically kills more people than firearms by a rate of 2 to 1.
  • You can legally vote.  A vote which may elect politicians who send this country off to war, into a depression, who invalidate rights, who raise taxes and cripples the middle class.
  • You can go off to war, where the Government is only too happy to put a gun in your hand to go and kill at their discretion.

But when you come home…well buddy, thanks for protecting the Country but don’t you even think about a handgun to protect yourself.

In it’s ruling the Court said that since the aforementioned loophole exists they do not have to apply “strict scrutiny” in regards to the matter and that a “eh, this works” ruling would suffice (note that “eh, this works” ruling is a rougher personal translation of “rational review”).

So instead of defending the enumerable rights of those who are otherwise given the rights of a citzen, the court decides to regurgitate the gun controls line that 18-20 year olds are too young, immature and prone to violence to purchase firearms.

The presiding judge, Edward Prado wrote in regards to the 1968 prohibition:

“Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns”.

I find it ironic that in 1968 things were really heating up in Vietnam and Congress didn’t have a problem given thousands upon thousands of 18-20 year olds weapons in order to go a killin’ in the foreign land.

Do I think 18-20 year olds always make the best decisions?  No.  But that doesn’t matter.

Either they are citizens or they’re not.  Congress and the courts shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which Constitutional right applies to whom and at what time.

 
8 Comments

Posted by on October 29, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

What Obama says and what the Founding Fathers meant

What Obama says and what the Founding Fathers meant

In a historical, he said they said moment, let us take a look at how Obama interprets the Second Amendment as compared to how the Founding Fathers meant it when it was written.

Firstly, President Obama claims to believe in the Second Amendment.  That’s all well and good, but if he doesn’t understand the Second Amendment then what good is his belief in it.  Let’s take a look at what his belief holds if we take him at his word:

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.” – Obama 7/25/12

Hunting and sport.  That is what Obama believes the Second Amendment is about.  Now let’s take a look at what the Founding Fathers, the ones who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of a King, the ones who enumerated our rights in the Bill of Rights, who set up our Government to be a Representational Republic and who intrinsically gave the people the power to decide how they will be governed.

We’ll start with the guy who is considered the Father of the Bill of Rights.  Let’s see what George Mason has to say on the issue:

“To disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”   -George Mason

I do not believe the the Father of the Bill of Rights was about deer rising up and enslaving the citizenry.  Mason wasn’t the only one.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”                         -Richard Henry Lee

“No free man shall ever be denied the use of Arms” – Thomas Jefferson

I don’t think Lee meant that we had to preserve our liberty from wildlife.  And since not every one was a hunter so if it only applied to hunters why wouldn’t he say “no hunter shall…”.

I know a lot of people want to try and use the wording of the Second Amendment to deny the individual the right to keep and bear arms so what does the Father of American Scholarship and Education have to say on the matter.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”    -Noah Webster

That pretty much encapsulates the entirety of what the Second Amendment means and as it was written to mean.  Webster wrote the above passage while examining the leading principles of a federal constitution back in 1787.  This wasn’t an interpretation of what the Amendment meant, it was a basis of which the Amendment would be written a year or so later.

So, the Second Amendment wasn’t written with hunting in mind but rather the defense of liberty against a tyrannical government.  One might think that President Obama just didn’t expand his definition well enough to include that.  One might think that…until the President starts talking like this:

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” -Obama

He uttered this phrase right after he finished with his first definition of the Second Amendment as pertaining to hunting.  He also tried to paint the argument that such weapons are only used by criminals or soldiers.  But the people should have the same access to such weapons legally.  Why should they?  Because that is who makes up a militia.  And not some modern nonsense about the National Guard but the true and timeless definition that a citizen has the right to protect their life and defend their liberty.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves”                  -Richard Henry Lee

Properly formed you ask?  All that means is that the group is not a roving mob but rather armed with purpose to defend liberty.  That is the truest sense of the term militia.  It doesn’t need government regulation or control because as it stands, it is the government that the militia will most likely need to defend themselves from.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton

Why is that the best we can hope for?  Because it is by the use of arms that freedom and liberty can ever exist.  Not necessarily by using them, but by simply having them to deter those who would usurp our liberties.

But of course, Obama at best thinks it only means hunting.  And if we continue to take him at his word then we must also accept that he believes in disarming the populace from any means of defense against a tyrannical despot.

“What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” -Obama 10/16/12

The only violence that could possibly reduce is the violence done in defense of liberty against tyranny.  Because, as any gardener of liberty and freedom knows:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson

While Webster phrases the reasons, Jefferson states the action.

That is the reason of the Second Amendment, and that is why Obama is so wrong on it.

 
28 Comments

Posted by on October 26, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Where few stood against many

Where few stood against many

For those of you who may not realize, today (Oct. 25th) is St. Crispin and Crispinian Day.  Why am I writing about it for a gun blog? Because this day oddly enough has a very interesting history of instances where few stood against many.

Often, gun control zealots like to dismiss the most important reason behind the Second Amendment, stating that A) the government would never become tyrannical and B) even if they did civilians wouldn’t be able to up against the US Military.  It goes to show the need for the Second Amendment to be applied to the heretofore demonized weapons like automatic guns and semi automatic rifles.

President Obama claims that weapons like the AK 47 belong in the hands of soldiers not criminals.  That they belong on the battlefield and not on the streets.

Of course with his desire for a so called “assault” weapons ban that would make law abiding citizens who have those guns criminals ipso facto.

But would the access to these weapons make a difference against the might of the US Military being used by a despotic and tyrannical government?  It has been said that at most 3 percent of colonists were roused to fight the Kings army, the most powerful in the world at the time.  If that 3% holds true today, then so long as we are not disarmed tyranny shall not rule openly in these United States.

But back to St. Crispin Crispinian Day. Below are two accounts of two battles that happened on this day.  Both had instances of a few charging against many.  The first were equally armed…the second, not so much.

The first occurred in 1415 at the Battle of Agincourt and was immortalized in Shakespeare’s play “Henry V”.  Henry and his band of English had landed in France to deal with the disputed area of Normandy and Aquitaine.  The French, of course, didn’t care for this to much and the final climax of the campaign came at Agincourt.

Henry had a scant 6500 men with him.  Only 1500 of which would be carrying a sword while the rest were long bowmen.  The French on the other hand had upwards of 30,000 men, 10,000 of which were Knights and other heavily armored men at arms.  1200 of which were mounted upon horses.  The rest a mix of bowmen, crossbowmen and foot soldiers.

Few stood against many and even though they were outnumbered and had less armor and weapons the English stood their ground and won the day.  This was done because even if though they had more, the French were fighting with swords and the English were fighting with swords.  The French had bows and arrows and the English had bows and arrows.  If the French had disarmed the English before the battle and said they could fight with knives and throw stones at the French the battle would have turned out much differently.

All told, the English lost 112 lives that day while the estimate of French losses number 7,000 to 10,000.

Why was this possible?  Because when placed on even footing, those with the will to fight and win can carry the day.  Just as those American’s who are willing to fight against tyranny can win against a military whose heart may not be in to the subjugation of its own.

Now lets take a look at the other immortalized battle on this day.  This one occurred in 1854 at the battle of Balaclava between the English and the Russians.  You may know of it as the “Charge of the Light Brigade”.  Here, we see what happens when there is a disproportionate balance of weaponry between two opposing forces.

On one hand you have the Light Brigade.  They are a cavalry unit who received miscommunicated orders to attack.  They were supposed to be harrying a retreating aspect of the Russian forces to which their light arms would be an asset, but due to the fog of war the order came to attack the main force of entrenched heavily armed Russians with overwhelming cannonades.

The English attacked and made a good show of it actually reaching the Russian lines, but after the withering and crushing bombardment, by the times they reached the line they had to retreat as they had lost more than half their number.

If the English were better equipped with weapons equal to the Russians then their fates may have been different as well.

 

All in all, despite what lip service the President gives to the Second Amendment, even if he means it, he only extends to the most meaningless aspect of the Right itself.

Obama’s stated view of the Second Amendment:

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation—that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

It’s no wonder why the President is seeking to ban firearms and what he deems to be “assault” weapons.  He thinks that if you don’t hunt with it, then you shouldn’t have it.

Such is not the case.  Even if it is only a few percent of us, the armed people remain a free people and this day has proven both that with equal arms few can stand against many as well as that an under-armed force can get obliterated regardless of their bravery or willingness to die for their cause.

I cannot reiterate enough how important it is that the Second Amendment is never confused or misconstrued to be made into a right that protects hunting.  It is insulting to the Patriots who have died to protect the right against tyranny.  They did not die to protect deer season.

And even if only a few of us are willing to fight for liberty, take heart…”one man with courage is a majority” -Thomas Jefferson.

On that thought Happy Crispin Crispinian Day.  Below is the link to Henry V’s St. Crispin’s Day Speech.

http://artofmanliness.com/2008/09/13/manvotional-2-we-few-we-happy-few-we-band-of-brothers/

 

 

 
8 Comments

Posted by on October 25, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

This is what happens when politicians only hear from gun fearing snivelers

This is what happens when politicians only hear from gun fearing snivelers

Since the state of Kansas does not have preemption with regards to firearm laws, any town or city can pass their own infringements on the Second Amendment leaving the state a nightmare to try and traverse.

Recently though, the Attorney General of Kansas,  wrote an opinion stating: ““A city may not completely prohibit the open carry of a loaded firearm on one’s person.”

That served as a wake up call to places like Wichita and Overland Park to hop on the trolley and retract their unconstitutional ban on open carrying.  Overland Park just recently enacted the legalization of open carrying a few weeks ago.
Even though the streets did not run red with blood and there WERE NOT daily shoot outs like the fictionalized old west, don’t tell that to gun haters.  They have been out in full force to decry the attack on their sensibilities in seeing a law abiding citizen with a pistol on their hip.
To quote Jim Hix, City Council Member, directly, “The public has not been pleased.”
I strongly doubt “the public” has not been pleased but rather a group of whiny gun hating servile government sycophants have been vocal about their irrational fear.  As such, since they are the only voice being heard the city council of Overland Park is now reconsidering the Open Carrying law that they passed some few scant weeks ago.
What do they want to change?  They want to force open carriers to pay the state in order to practice their 2nd Amendment rights, ie get a concealed weapons permit in order to open carry.
What the city council wimps don’t realize is that those infringements won’t placate the few people who are pedaling their irrationality.  Just listen to some of the “concerns” these gun haters have:

Laveriss Steadham of Overland Park thinks the city made a mistake to allow open carry of weapons in the first place and wishes that residents had been given a chance to vote on the idea.

“I would love to see some restrictions,” she said of the proposed changes.

She says she wants restrictions, but what does that mean?  It means she wants guns to go away because the only way to restrict open carry to remove the main issue that gun haters have with open carry is to outlaw open carry.

Another resident of the city, Florence Erickson, said the open carry law, with or without the proposed restrictions, is “ludicrous” in the way it could make guns more commonplace. She and her husband, Gary Erickson, worry older people carrying weapons may have “a mental lapse” or that they may fall victims to young people wanting to steal a weapon.

The keeping and bearing of arms is “ludicrous” to Mrs. Erickson.  Not only does she allow her gun hating side to beam through she backs it up with basic gun control fear mongering and ageist bigotry saying that old people  are helpless and frail and fall victim to young criminals.

Well, to that I say this and this and this. (links to old people being awesome)

Then you have Paul Lyons who initially voted against the change and wanted to keep the ban on open carry in place.  He is of the ilk that states that someones feelings trump another’s constitutional rights:

“People who would see that would be concerned and might be somewhat intimidated by a person doing that,”

I know old Jewish people in Squirrel Hill Pennsylvania that are intimidated by black people.  Should we ban black people from that part of Pittsburgh?  Your feelings are your own and you have a right to them, but they do not trump my Constitutionally enumerated rights and for the council to even consider the revocation of a law they just passed because of baseless and irrational fear of ninnies is just pathetic.

Lyons would go on to say that there’s no reason for a person to need to openly carry in Overland Park.  I guess the Constitution doesn’t hold much pull with Councilman Lyons.

Lyons is quoted as saying this though, since the Government trumps the Constitution and knows better:

“It certainly is not for self-protection because if they wanted it for protection, they would have the option of obtaining a concealed permit.”

So, instead of an inalienable right that we are born with, Councilman Lyons believes that the Second Amendment is not a right but rather a privilege that can be given or rejected at the governments whim.

This is what happens when there is a sound vacuum and only one voice is being heard.  Weak willed politicians go with whatever the way the wind blows.

If you live in Kansas, especially if you live in Wichita or Overland Park, I suggest that you contact your local government and decry the outrage at their consideration of infringing on your right to keep and bear arms openly.  Overland Park will move on the matter next month so you do not have much time.

 

Here is the contact list for every city council member of Overland Park:  Contact info Overland Park

Here is the feedback form for the Wichita City Council:  City Council Feedback Form

Let your voices be heard

 
14 Comments

Posted by on October 24, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Did Obama just admit that machine guns should be legal for citizens?

Did Obama just admit that machine guns should be legal for citizens?

Of course he won’t admit it, but if you follow the logic of his argument at the debate last night (though I doubt he will), technology has evolved and as such, so has the weaponry.

His exact quote in rebuttal to Romney’s claim that we have less ships in the navy now than in 1917:

 “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. … We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

So, seeing how technology has changed for the military it would only be logical that the free citizens of this country have their Second Amendment rights grow and evolve accordingly.  Therefore, we can set aside the silly musket argument that the gun control zealots like to talk about.

We are left with the only logical conclusion, using the President’s own argument, that the free people of this country’s right to keep and bear arms has evolved as well past muskets to not only semi automatic rifles but also to fully automatic machine guns.

And why would we need that?  It sure as shootin doesn’t have anything to do with hunting i’ll tell you that.  It goes to the fundamental law of nature that existed even before the right was enumerated in the Constitution.  The American settlers understood that the right to keep and bear arms was important for these purposes:

  • deterring tyrannical government;
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection;
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Notice how hunting is not on that list.  These are the real reasons why the framers of the Constitution enumerated our right to keep and bear arms.

A quote has been attributed to Admiral Yamamoto of Japan during the WWII in regards to the feasibility of invading the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Even if it is misattributed to the Admiral the sentiment is no less true.  Gun owners number more than 80 million in this country and if allowed to fully exercise their God given rights, would be able to fully repel invasion and more importantly deter tyrannical governments.

For so long I have heard the argument by the gun control zealots that the Founding Fathers couldn’t imagine the type of firepower available in the future and as such the people should be limited to muskets and single shot pistols.

But as President Obama said, things have evolved and changed and the Founding Fathers envisioned that while the Right wouldn’t change, the manner in which it is exercised would.

The Founding Fathers distrusted government in general.  Even the one that they created and as such enumerated the Second Amendment as a safe guard against tyranny.  If the times change and the military is allowed to evolve, then to deny the expansion of the firearms available to free citizens of America would completely undermine and invalidate the Second Amendment and what it was intended to protect.

Of course, for the gun control tyrants, that’s kind of the point.

And for those of you with short memories, machine guns were once more readily available to the general public and not that long ago.  Before the Hughes Amendment in 1986 (which passed by the house under questionable means) it was perfectly legal to purchase an automatic weapon and streets were not running red with blood.

But I digress.  The fact remains that Obama would not only keep automatic rifles manufactured after 1986 illegal but has publicly stated he wants to reinstate the ban semi-automatic rifles that are the most popular firearms in America.  The hypocrisy of gun control tyrants in power is nothing new but always stomach turning.  Obama is more than happy to let the military evolve while the people are gelded in order to keep a dichotomy of power shifted firmly in the governments advantage.

This is the reason the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the clearest language of the day: Shall Not Be Infringed.

The whole of the populace should be able to have the ability to counter the tyranny of the government.  But if the former is limited to muskets and the latter allowed the technology of the day the ability is stripped and freedom dies.

 
13 Comments

Posted by on October 23, 2012 in Uncategorized

 
Aside
Unconstitutional and Illegal?  Philadelphia and Nutter do not care

Once again Philadelphia, Mayor Nutter (that’s his real name and aptly so) and the crooked government of Philadelphia has tried to use illegal and harassing measures to strip its citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

Pennsylvania’s Legislature has full preemption over gun laws within the Commonwealth and as such, any law that is passed by a local municipality that seeks to pass gun measures beyond what the legislature all ready has put forth is null, void and unenforceable.

That doesn’t seem to bother Nutter (a part of Bloombergs cabal of Mayors Against Illegal Guns) and his cronies though, as they have continued to pass measure after measure only to have it beaten in court at the cost of the taxpayers.  That’s right, they KNOW it is unenforceable but they pass these measures anyways and force the court to affirm they are unenforceable.  But Nutter isn’t paying out of his pocket for the legal fees, no, John and Jane Q Taxpayer have to foot the bill for Nutters folly.  The idea is that gun owners will eventually tire and let Philadelphia and its seemingly bottomless pit of taxpayer money win by attrition.

Now, the thugs of Philadelphia’s government decided on a new tactic to harass gun owners.  They made their information public.  Not only the fact as to which residents have a PA License to Carry a Firearm but also the reasons WHY they requested one and even posted an interactive map online with a point and click interface to get you door to door directions as to where these license holders live.

This information was posted online on the Dept. of Licenses and Inspections website over the summer.  Not only was this patently illegal, as Pennsylvania has a law keeping such information confidential, but also ethically repugnant as it endangered lives.

For instance, a Philadelphia Pastor who carries a large sum of money and drives a nice car was “outed” by the L&I dept.  His name (which I won’t use) address and reason for his License (I CARRY A LOT OF MONEY FOR WORK) were out there for anyone with computer access to look up.

After appropriate outrage by gun owners and Pennsylvania’s Firearm Owners Against Crime, L&I removed the information.  But as they say, you can’t un-ring a bell and lawsuits of those whose confidential information was released are pending.

Mayor Nutter’s defense?  According to his spokesman spokesman, Mark McDonald, the L&I information is public record because permit holders or applicants waive their right to confidentiality when they appeal a permit denial or revocation.

Now, that is akin to saying that your vote is a matter of public record so you shouldn’t have the expectancy of privacy in how you cast your ballot.  With such “transparency” we open ourselves up as a society to the possibility of intimidation, harassment  and threats not only from those who would disagree with us but also from the government who would dictate how we are supposed to vote.

The fact that Philadelphia once again goes against the laws of the Commonwealth without any repercussions against the criminals in charge such as Mayor Nutter and his cronies is a shame.  Once again the taxpaying citizens are going to foot the bill for the corruption of city hall.

Unfortunately, Philadelphia being so large and the current assembly not having the stones to push for it, a version of Florida’s Preemption Violation Law would have provided much needed penalties for municipality officials that violate gun laws and ignore Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions to the detriment of law abiding gun owners. Ironic that gun control zealots have no problem passing laws that criminals won’t follow but won’t pass a measure that would punish their own criminal activities.

The law in Florida, which went into effect on Oct. 1st of this year, holds elected officials liable for passing laws or allowing laws to remain that go against preemption with a $5000 fine that has to be paid personally by the culprit as well as the ability for the Governor of Florida to remove the violator from office.

Now THAT is a gun law I can get behind in Pennsylvania.  But alas, as I said, the Assembly as a whole just didn’t have the stones for it.

It just sickens me the hypocrisy of Nutter and his cronies.  They think more gun control will be effective because obviously criminals follow the rules, yet Nutter and his cronies knowingly break the law because they face no personal repercussions.

If I lived in Philadelphia I would be sickened by this.  Though, in all honesty, I have to say Pittsburgh has sickened me at times to.  Especially when Council Woman Tonya Payne said this in regards to an unconstitutional ordinance they passed violating preemption:

“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne “This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine”

Of course, who is going to pay for that court battle Ms. Payne? It sure as hell isn’t going to be you.  This is why Pennsylvania needs the Florida Preemption Violation Law.  So Constitution hating political sleaze like Tonya Payne are held personally and financially responsible for her disdain for the American process.  I guarantee you that Payne and those like her would start caring about what is constitutional and what isn’t when its their paychecks on the line.

Unconstitutional and Illegal? Philadelphia and Nutter do not care

 
7 Comments

Posted by on October 22, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Weekend Hodgepodge – Men Who Built America

Weekend Hodgepodge – Men Who Built America

This past Tuesday, after the Presidential debate I had the good fortune to turn to the History Channel and catch the premiere episode of their new mini series “Men Who Built America”.

Now, before you get the idea that I am going to start praising Romney for being a business man and bash Obama for claiming that business owners didn’t build their own success and can only succeed with government interference, I’m not.

This isn’t about the current election.  Its about the change in business in the past 100+ years.  I have a feeling that these men, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Morgan probably wouldn’t have been able to have the same success in today’s market as they were back then.

Why?  Because we have grown soft as a people.  We have grown complacent as entrepreneurs and we have grown so risk averse that we feel like we should be bailed out if we fail.  So their single mindedness of purpose, their take no prisoners approach, their absolute refusal to accept defeat would be shunned in today’s world.

For instance, these Men Who Built America risked every thing they had when they were poor and risked fortunes when they were rich.  If they failed, which they had at different points in their careers, they didn’t go looking for a government bailout to save their companies.  No, they broke down and then built up something better than what had failed before.

They didn’t go looking for a handout anywhere.  Sure, they were ruthless, cutthroat businessmen who would bleed each other dry in order to gain an advantage but so what?   Because of these men the US moved from a country bleeding from a civil war with little imprint on a world to a National Power.

That wasn’t done with an army.  That was done with resources, invention, oil, steel, innovations etc.

But yet today we have grown so soft in our complacency that places like China have gained an advantage.  We run the risk of following the Roman Empire to ruin.  A country that refuses to challenge itself, to grow and to continue to innovate will grow stagnate, will wither and then will die.

We can only rest on our laurels for so long, then it is time to get back to work and ply that American can-do attitude and resilience to create the next great thing.

That is what the Men Who Built America did.  They didn’t try once and then quit.  They didn’t fail and then look for a bailout.  They were Captains of industry and Captains lead.

You only fail when you quit.

Of course, one needs to operate in an environment that is not absolutely hostile to business owners sooo…

 

Anyways, check the show out on the History Channel on Tuesdays at 9pm.  It has great production value and is a fun and interesting way to learn a thing or two about how this country we live in actually got built outside of wars and Washington DC.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 21, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Georgia treads on the 1st Amendment while attacking the 2nd

Georgia treads on the 1st Amendment while attacking the 2nd

Gun grabbing zealots often let their disregard for the Second Amendment bleed into other enumerated rights.  Such an example can be found in Georgia where law abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying their firearms into places of worship.

Now, this isn’t a church, synagogue or mosque saying they don’t want guns there…it is the government telling these places of worship they CAN’T ALLOW them.

A child praying over a meal in school, cheerleaders writing a bible quote on a banner, or a cross on a high school football helmet and the civil rights activists come storming in decrying separation of church and state blah blah blah.

But when the government forcibly dictates how a church must operate, those same people fall silent.  The First Amendment is written specifically to stop the government from dictating how a house of worship is to be operated.

Seeing how the separation of church and state crowd only view it as a one way street it is up to gun owners to fight the fight in order to kick government out of the pulpit.

Spearheaded by Georgiacarry.org, the suit has initially been rejected by the state level courts and the 11th District of Appeals Court.  That means the only court left to hear this case and decide the matter will be the US Supreme Court if they decide to hear the case.

This story reminds me of my earlier posts concerning Derry New Hampshire mainly because of the idiocy that some of the people down in Georgia have espoused in regards to this issue.

Such as:

“Guns and church don’t mix,” said Shannon Johnson. “I don’t believe that you should have any kind of violent weapons near a church.

“If you need a gun to go to church, you don’t need to be there,” added Ronnie Russell.

Some people just refuse to learn from history.  I contend that you need a gun in church just as much as you need a gun to go to the movie theater, or to work, or to the store or to class in college.

Of course, when these places are gun free zones, like currently every house of worship is in Georgia, you are making it very easy for the bad men to do evil there.

Because guess what?  You are not disarming the psychopath whose looking to murder a bunch of people, no, you are actually facilitating his crime and the government is an accessory to murder.

The people you are disarming?  Ian Kilov.  Ian is a member of the Sandy Springs Gun Club, and he also carries a 9mm handgun in a holster at all times, except when he enters his synagogue.

“It’s quite scary in a way,” said Kilov. “Not that everything’s ever happened at our synagogue or church – but if it were to, I would feel very foolish.”

So…Ian will follow the law.  The guy who is about to commit murder is all ready willing to break that law…do you honestly think he’ll give a damn about your little gun prohibition?

I hope the Supreme Court takes this case and overturns the lower courts ruling because the government has no place in religion and any gun free zone that can be eliminated is a step against mass murder.

 
16 Comments

Posted by on October 19, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Obama’s record of gun control

Obama’s record of gun control

Now that it is finally on the radar with his public support of a semi automatic weapons ban i thought I would explain just how anti gun Barack Obama. Somehow, people keep lauding how pro gun he is.  All the can point to is a National Park carry amendment to a Credit Card Reform bill he had to sign and the fact that he hasn’t pushed any gun control measures in his first term.

Let’s start with those two.  First, the Credit Card Reform bill was a big deal to him at the time and as such Republicans used it to attach the National Parks Carry amendment to it.  Obama could either veto it and basically undermine his entire campaign on how important the CCR bill was or he could grudgingly sign it.  He signed it.

Next, he hasn’t pushed for any gun control measures.  He has, but people tend not to see it because as the President said, he’s doing it “under the radar”.

It’s political suicide to openly challenge the 2nd Amendment.  Bill Clinton learned that lesson back in 1994 and the Congress was lost to him.  Al Gore learned it in 2000 when he lost his gun loving home state along with Clinton’s.

So yes, Obama has not pushed for any gun control bills.  But at the same time his threat of veto has stalled pro gun bills like National Reciprocity in the Senate where a veto proof majority (60 votes) has come up just short.

The President also has appointed or tried to appoint a slew of anti gun activist judges to the Federal Judicial Branch.  These include Sotomayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court.  Sotomayor lied to congress declaring that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right and then in her first case on the subject rules against the right to keep and bear arms.

Kagan is no better.  Stating that she has “no sympathy” for the argument against complete gun bans.

With the number of vacancies in the lower courts Obama keeps nominating waves of anti gun justices and it is politically untenable to stop them all so gun grabbers are getting through the cracks.  Fortunately, even the President goes too far and picks an extremist that is beyond the pale.  Such was the case of Caitlin Halligan.

And these are only some of his appointments, others like his Cabinet members, staff and his army of czars are even more extreme.

Then there is the Presidents support of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty which would erode American Sovereignty and cripple the importation and exportation of firearms thus causing financial difficulty to US manufacturers.  The end game of course is to get around the Constitution and bankrupt US Manufacturers.

So, we have a President who was forced to sign a bill with a pro gun amendment attached, has stone walled any stand alone pro gun bill, has nominated and pushed to pack the courts with anti gun judges, and supports a UN Treaty that would threaten American Sovereignty and the Second Amendment.

We haven’t even gotten to his record.  Oh yes, he has a record of promoting gun control on the books.

In Illinois  Obama opposed a bill that would ok the use of a firearm to defend yourself in a home invasion robbery.  Not only did he vote against it but after it was passed and vetoed by then Gov. Blagojevich he voted against the override attempt.  It passed despite Obama’s efforts.

Obama has endorsed the Illinois Gun ban.

Obama supported the DC gun ban.

Stated he believes in the licensing and registering of guns.

In 2000, co sponsored a bill limiting firearms purchases to 1 gun a month

In a 2004 Senatorial debate argued that President Bush was wrong by not renewing the Assault Weapons Ban.  Apparently, revealed in his last debate, he still feels the same way.

In 1998 stated he supported:

  • Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
  • Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
  • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

As a US Senator, Obama voted no to prohibit frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers for crimes used by their product.  Once again, its like suing General Motors for being hit by a drunk driver in a GM car.

Under the radar, over the radar it doesn’t matter.  President Obama is anti gun and pro control.  For those of you who say otherwise you are either insincere or blindly naive at best.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 18, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

OBAMA DECLARES HE WANTS TO BAN GUNS

OBAMA DECLARES HE WANTS TO BAN GUNS

In the debate last night he actually said it.  Surprised me a little but maybe the President let a little of the real Obama slip.

But before I get to the weapons ban that President Obama supports let me get to what he believes the Second Amendment  protects.

Obama: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

The Second Amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.  The idea of needing to protect hunting back in the 1700’s was about as valued as the need to enumerate the right to breathing.  It was such a part of life that it would be unheard of to deny it to people since many outside of cities needed it to live.

No, Mr. President, though you merely gave it lip service, you were closer to the mark on the last bit.  The Second Amendment is about the people protecting themselves.  Now, while in the simplest terms that is to protect ones self, family and property it broadens out once you look at from whom the people need protection.

Yes, more often firearms are used to stop a burglar, mugger, or nutjob who wants to do us harm directly, but even then, that is not the extent of what the Founders intended for the Second Amendment.

The Founders enumerated the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a defense against tyranny from overreaching and oppressive governments.  Basically, the 2nd Amendment is the peoples protection against you.

It is the last line of defense against would be despots who would force the people to submit their freedom and liberty to appease a tyrant.

From our Founding Fathers:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” -Noah Webster

“…Arms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace.” -Thomas Paine

“…What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify is a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure….” -Thomas Jefferson

Of course, Mr. Obama, the manure I worry about is the kind you were shoveling last night about how the free people of the United States do not “need” semi automatic rifles.

I share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. -Obama

Interesting.  I hear gun control zealots all the time saying how the Founding Fathers only knew muskets and that that is all the 2nd Amendment should protect.  That is like saying they only had horses to travel with so even while allowing for invention, cars shouldn’t be allowed to go over 25 miles per hour.

No, Mr. Obama, the weapons have evolved and since the 2nd Amendment is to protect against tyranny then by all means and rights  the American People should and ought to have access to weapons that would keep any dictator who sat in the Oval Office at bay.

Do I need a machine gun to go duck hunting?  Nope.  Do I need it to help as a deterrent from some megalomaniac who would seek to grind me and my liberty under heel?  You bet your life I do.

Because THAT is what the Second Amendment is about.  Freedom.  Liberty.  And the protection of them both.  Saying its about Hunting is like saying Voting is about getting a free cookie at the election hall.  It’s an added bonus but really has nothing to do with the right.

So where do you stand? Apparently you don’t believe in freedom.  You finally let your inner Chicago out.

 I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. - Obama

So, to reduce violence, brought on by a few, you would strip the liberty of the many?  Another Founding Father had a thought about that:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin 

But Liberty is, and will always be, the bane of tyranny.  Gun Control is about control and Mr. Obama, you have revealed your hand.

You want to point to Aurora, CO?  I point to Tiannemon Square, Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, the Great Purge, and slavery.

Those are examples of what a Government can do to an unarmed populace.  May your future for America never come to pass Mr. Obama, for it walks the same lines and will lead to the same results.

 
50 Comments

Posted by on October 17, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Bear hugger says “Don’t shoot” Plus Derry NH redux

Bear hugger says “Don’t shoot” Plus Derry NH redux

According to Alaska Department of Fish & Game bear safety specialist John Hechtel, bear spray and firearms can be “equally effective in trained hands, depending on the situation. I certainly don’t think we should try to pit one tool against the other .”

Seems reasonable.  I mean, utilize the tools at hand to protect yourself the best you can.  Of course, not everyone agrees.  A pair of biologists call the claim that the argument to use a firearm to protect yourself instead of using bear spray is ridiculous and try pitting one form over the other.  In this case pushing for spray alone.

Chris Servheen wrote a “fact sheet” for the US Fish and Wildlife Service stating:

“since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries.”

Sounds pretty concrete.  Buuuuuuuut….Servheen offered no data, proof, or reference to his statistical information.  He might as well be saying that “60% of the time it works every time”.

Servheen further claims that: “Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research — a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.”

Of course this is a further fabrication with no actual references or hard numbers to back it up.

Hard numbers do exist though, to counter their claims.  A 2006 report by Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader Chuck Schwartz made it perfectly clear that when a big game hunter holding a rifle surprises a nearby grizzly and gets charged, firearms are the only option. Schwartz reviewed 68 grizzly bear deaths in the Yellowstone region from 1992 to 2004. On 24 occasions, hunters and bears startled each other and the bears charged. “Time and again,” Schwartz told the Casper Star Tribune, “hunters said it happened so fast that when they shot, the bear fell right at their feet.”

Don’t get me wrong…i’m not saying “see a bear, shoot a bear” (unless you are actually hunting a bear), and I am disgusted by the needless death of animals, especially when they are just protecting their own.

Bear spray can be very effective due to a bears heightened senses.  This isn’t about knocking bear spray.  It’s about knocking falsehoods and made up statistics by those who oppose firearms just to push for their ideology  It’s a common tactic of gun control zealots.

My suggestion if you’re in bear country?  Carry both, but if you only have time to pull one I say let the lead fly.

——————————————————————————

In a redux of a story I told you about last week in Derry, NH, apparently another internet based firearm business has been put before the Zoning Board of Adjustments and just like with the previous business owners, Thomas Nelson was granted his permit to operate his business by a vote of 3-2.

Of course, once again the neighbors were spewing the same nonsense as they did last time:

Several residents from the Woodlands development spoke against granting a special exception for Nelson, noting that the development is a quiet, residential area with many children.

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!?!?!

What about them?  I’m at the point that I can barely even mock these people for their nonsensical jabbering.  Is Nelson going to start passing out full loaded glocks to the children for Halloween treats?

One neighbor Jeffrey Kattar worries that the business will lower property values.

IT’S AN INTERNET BASED BUSINESS.  At most, Nelson says that he may handle some transfers at his home for people who need the service but if he succeeds at his enterprise will move into a brick and mortar shop.

This newest 3-2 vote just goes to illustrate the razor’s edge between freedom and servitude.  If one pro vote turned con, then 2 businesses would have been squashed before they were even allowed to begin.

Is this some veiled allusion to the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment?  Yep.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 16, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

He was young once…but was always a soldier

He was young once…but was always a soldier

I speak of Command Sgt Major Basil Plumley.  The country lost an iconic trooper this past week and I wanted to take a moment to reflect on the man who defended his country on 2 continents and 3 countries.

CSM Plumley started his military career in 1942 as a Private in the army.  He invaded Sicily, fought in the battle of Salerno, fought in the battle of Normandy and Operation Market Garden.  Plumley in total made 4 combat jumps all across Europe.

He would again be called to battle during the Korean War where he would make his 5th combat jump.

But it will be in his final war that CSM Plumley will be remembered most for.  His exploits were portrayed by Sam Elliot in “We were Soldiers Once” based off the book “We Were Soldiers Once…and Young” by Col. Hal Moore and reporter Joseph Galloway about the training of 7th Air Cav and its first battle in the la Drang Valley, Vietnam.

By all accounts, Sam Elliot actually underplayed the role and CSM Plumley was even MORE gravel chewing and hard charging.  “Old Iron Jaws” as he was affectionately known among the men, was gruff, monosyllabic, and an absolute terror when it came to enforcing standards of training.  It is that high level of discipline in himself that he instilled into others and I would wager that a good number of men saw themselves safe through combat because of it.

If in training he was a strict task master, then it was in combat that he revealed the leadership that would inspire others to walk through the fires of hell and back.  Even a non combatant like Joe Galloway who was at the Battle of la Drang was inspired when he found himself curled up on the ground while the American’s were taking incoming fire.

Galloway recalls:

“The sergeant major bent at the waist and shouted over the incredible din of battle—-‘You can’t take no pictures laying down there on the ground, Sonny.’ I thought to myself he’s right. I also thought fleetingly that we might all die here in this place—and if I am going to die I would just as soon take mine standing up beside a man like this. Like a fool, I got up. I followed the sergeant major over to the makeshift aid station where Doc Carrera and Sgt. Tommie Keeton were tending the wounded. Plumley hollered at them: Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves! As he pulled out his .45 pistol and jacked a round into the chamber.” 

Now, when your Command Sgt Major tells you to prepare yourself, its one thing…when he emphasizes the point by locking a round in the chamber of his 1911 it somehow instills the point that things are going to get hot and heavy real quick and you are about to be face to face with the enemy…literally.

A few words and a simple action is all it took.

That was the kind of man CSM Plumley was.  He didn’t need to give rousing speeches, he wasn’t about flowery pep talks.  When a soldier wished him good morning one day, Plumley responded “Who made you the %&#$Q weatherman?”  No…no flowery pep talks.

He was a man of action that instilled more in those actions than a library of words could muster. This country may have Declared Independence with flowing words of poetry and grace, but it was won and defended by men of action such as Plumley.

America lost a great man when CSM Plumley died this past week at the age of 92. His love of country and that of his men never faltered.  His jaw may have been iron…but his heart was gold.

Medals and awards: CSM Basil Plumley

Silver Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster
Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster
Purple Heart with three Oak Leaf Clusters
Army Air Medal with eight Oak Leaf Clusters
Army Presidential Unit Citation
Army Good Conduct Medal
American Campaign Medal
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with arrowhead device and one silver and three bronze campaign stars (eight  campaigns)
World War II Victory Medal
Army of Occupation Medal
National Defense Service Medal with one Gold Star
Korean Service Medal with one Arrowhead Device and three campaign stars
Vietnam Service Medal with eight campaign stars
Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation
Republic of Vietnam Presidential Citation
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm three Awards
United Nations Service Medal for Korea
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Unit Award Honor Medal
Republic of Korea War Service Medal, Order of Saint Maurice
Combat Infantryman Badge (third award)
Master Parachutist Badge with five Combat Jump Stars
French Croix de Guerre 82nd Airborne
Belgian Croix de Guerre 82nd Airborne
Dutch Order of the Orange 82nd Airborne
Doughboy Award 1999
 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 15, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Shall not be infringed…unless it makes the neighbors nervous?

Shall not be infringed…unless it makes the neighbors nervous?

In the quiet little town of Derry, NH Allan and Susan Fillingham decided to start a little online business from home.  With the economy in the state it is, it’s refreshing to see a pair of entrepreneurs actually starting something from scratch.  It seems like this should be something that is encouraged.

One would think that.  But when your home business is selling antique and collectible firearms online apparently all reason and sensibility by the masses is thrown out and the Fillingham’s are treated like they want to run a crack house.

Where usually the permit to operate a home business would be a formality, nervous Nelly’s around Derry decided to make a fuss and a special permit exception was passed by a vote of 3-2.  So the good news is that the permit passed and the Fillinghams can begin to operate their business.

The bad news…if you want to call it that…is some of the absurd statements by the neighbors who are surprisingly anti gun. Surprising because New Hampshire motto is: “Live Free or Die”.

Apparently in Derry it’s more like “Live Free so long as it makes no one else nervous or we’ll try and make your business die”

Here are some examples of the sentiments of neighbors and Zoning Board of Adjustment members:

ZBA Member Al Dimmock who voted against granting the permit questioned whether there would be shooting demonstrations at the residence. As if the Fillinghams would set up plates above the mantle in their living room and have people start blasting away in the house.

Dimmock joined with the other dissenter Don Burgess stating that the opposition from many in the neighborhood and stating that the business did not fit in with the character of the sleepy neighborhood.

So entrepreneurship and self reliance doesn’t fit with the character of the neighborhood?  Maybe the Fillingham’s should just get on the government dime so as not to offend anyone with their self reliance and drive.

As for those neighbors, they came across like clucking hens thinking that the sky is falling.

“We think having a business on our street, especially a firearms business, is inappropriate for the neighborhood,” said Hubbard Hill Road resident Kathryn Egan

Why “ESPECIALLY” a firearms business?  It amazes me how some people lose all reason when they hear the word firearm.  I have to imagine that Egan thinks that Hubbard Hill is going to turn into New Jack City just because a competitive shooter decides to turn is passion into his livelihood.

As I said earlier, the permit was awarded.  Fortunately, level headed individuals such as ZBA Chairman Allan Virr brought some sense to the proceedings stating that the Fillinghams met the requirement to be granted a special exception for a home business, adding that there are many gun owners and collectors who keep guns in their homes.

Shame on the two board members and the neighbors who tried to impede both the Second Amendment and the American entrepreneurial spirit.

Always nice to end the week on a win.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 12, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Wal-Mart caves to gun control whims

Wal-Mart caves to gun control whims

The story is a pretty straight forward one.  In South Bend Indiana, Wal-Mart has come under fire by Citizen’s United for Better Government (not to be confused with Citizen’s United) for selling tactical shotguns and rifles that they say would not be used for hunting.

The City Council agreed and came to Wal-Mart demanding that they pull these weapons from their store.  Wal-Mart capitulated.  The South Bend Wal-Mart has pulled all long guns with the term tactical attached and will block any future shipment of them to the store and limit the hours in which it sells ammunition.

Now, not only do I fault Wal-Mart for folding under the auspices of “community safety” I also fault them for signing an agreement in 2011 with the City Council stating that no tactical shotguns would be sold with to begin with.

Due to this agreement, perhaps Wal-Mart had no choice to respond as they did, but that only means they bowed to the demands of gun grabbing politicians to begin with and only now has it been made public.

Now, as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  So when some anti gun, rights infringers start bawling about the mean scary gun at Wal-Mart in a sound vacuum where they are the only voice, city councils and businesses think that it is in their benefit to do as the gun grabbers demands.

This is why constant vigilance is needed on the part of Second Amendment patriots.  We cannot let such actions go unnoticed or unchallenged.  Simple thing to do?  Give Wal-Mart a call at their corporate office (or write a letter) and let them know that the capitulation to gun control zealots in South Bend Indiana has not gone unnoticed.  And please, be polite.

Walmart Home Office

702 SW 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716-8611
479-273-4000

 
28 Comments

Posted by on October 11, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Gun Control Zealots busy at work taxing and suing

Gun Control Zealots busy at work taxing and suing

In a pair of stories today, we’ll take a look at two cases of Gun Control Zealots’ end around methods of pricing firearms and ammunition out of the hands of the average law abiding citizen.

The first is blatantly bigoted and aimed at disenfranchising lower income households from keeping arms.  I say keeping arms and not bearing them because I am talking about Chicago Illinois where it is still illegal to carry a loaded weapon on your person.

Chicago has seen a continued rise in murders and as a result, Cook County has decided to combat this rampant criminal behavior by…wait for it…issuing a violence tax.  Yep.  They believe that they can TAX violence away.

But let us suspend the common sense reaction to this absurdity and actually break it down.  Murders are up by 25% yet murder is illegal in Cook County, last time I checked.  So, whereas these criminals have no issue in breaking a law and taking another persons life Cook County thinks making it more expensive for them to commit these crimes is going to stop them?  Hmmm…assuming that these criminals would even PAY a tax on a firearm (rather than just steal one or buy one on the street) the increased cost would most likely be covered by…oh I don’t know…COMMITTING MORE CRIME!

So then, who does this “violence tax” really affect?  Well, if you are the victim of a Chicago criminal’s trickle down larceny then it affects you.  But mostly it will affect the law abiding who do what is right, pay their taxes and so on.  That is the only people gun control really affects.  The people who are not committing crimes in the first place, who all ready follow the law and who have the screws put to them by gun grabbing zealots who attack their Second Amendment Rights under the veil of “Community Safety”.

It’s a crock.  Not only that, as I wrote in an earlier post about the roots of gun control, it is also racist and bigoted.  It targets poor people of whom minorities make up a large chunk in Chicago.  So, these gun control zealots are willing to make it harder for a  poor working family to protect their home in some of the areas most afflicted with crime.  So much for the 99%.

Once again, gun control zealots show their true colors.  Since McDonald vs Chicago they haven’t been able to deny people the right to keep arms outright, so the Chicago machine (filled with gun grabbing zealots) will try to price guns and ammo out of the budget of law abiding lower income families.  The hypocrisy would be comical if it wasn’t so repugnant.

A little to the East in Buffalo New York, activist judges of the New York Appellate Court reversed a lower courts ruling and allowed a lawsuit to go forward of a shooting victim against a firearm manufacturer and dealer.  Apparently the Appellate Court in New York doesn’t much care about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their products.  I guess if you want to just rule around laws to further your personal agenda from the bench there is little to stop you from doing so.

Now, this story isn’t a happy one.  A 16 year old kid, Daniel Williams, was shot while playing basketball in his driveway apparently during a case of mistaken identity by gang banger Cornell Caldwell.  Caldwell bought the gun from James Bostic who used straw purchases to buy Hi Point Pistols and resell them on the street. I guess Caldwell and Bostic (aka the criminals) didn’t have enough money so the family decided to sue the dealer and the manufacturer.

Now, should the dealer have thought something was up when he sold 87 Hi Point Pistols to a single person paying cash?  Yep.  Just like a Doctor supplying drugs to a drug dealer, such reckless behavior should not be tolerated by the firearms community.  Not only does it make the community as a whole look bad, but it provides an opening for the gun grabbing zealots to ooze through and try to undermine the Second Amendment.

And that is what is happening now.  What is hard to swallow is that not only are gun grabbers and Williams attorney going after the dealer, they are going after the manufacturer themselves, Hi-Point.  For Williams Attorney I can only assume that he is going where the big money is, and for the Brady Campaign, they would like nothing more than to topple a gun manufacturer.

But for the common folk with common sense one has to beg the question: “How is Hi Point at fault?”

I mean, why not sue the steel company for providing the raw materials to make the pistols in the first place.  At that point, why not sue the mining company that mined the ore to make the steel.  I mean, surely they SHOULD have known that the ore would matriculate to a shooting in Buffalo.

Once more, the comedy of the absurd at the hands of the gun control crowd.  Groups like the Brady Campaign never much like blaming the actual criminals…no…they would much rather bankrupt firearm manufacturers.  And with less and less manufacturers the higher and higher the price will climb.

As for the judges who opened Pandora’s box, I wonder how’d they feel if a law was passed holding them personally responsible for every crime committed by a criminal they let off the hook.

Just another day in the Gun Control Community’s endless fight against the law abiding citizen.

 

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 10, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Our Government is failing the troops

The War on Terror these past ten years has come with a heavy toll.  The men and women we send overseas to defend and protect our liberty and ensure our safety far too often do not have the same reciprocated.  Many that come home after one, two, a half dozen tours have scars that pay testament to their sacrifice.  A missing limb from an IED, a loss of sight from shrapnel, burn scars from incendiaries…these are the scars we can see and through out our history good and true Americans have seen these scars as badges of honor and respect the price that that service member had paid to defend the United States.

To all the war protesting hippies of Vietnam who would spit on returning soldiers let me make my view on you crystal clear…to quote Sen. James Webb when asked about his feelings about war protester and traitor Jane Fonda:

“I wouldn’t cross the street to watch her slit her own wrists”

Back to the troops.  The scars on the outside are easy to see and tell the tale of the price liberty costs.  But it is too rare that we, as a nation, recognize the scars on the psyche that many service members return from war have.  This, tragically, has led to a ever increasing number of suicides among soldiers and marines returning from combat.

The failing here I place squarely on the Pentagon and the government as a whole for being too quick to dismiss the mental toll that continuous war has on an all volunteer military.  During the draft era, you got drafted, served a set time and if you survived you went home.  Not saying that it was easy but there was a beginning and an end.

Today we ask our military to continue to go back to the grinder time and time again.  We impose rules of engagement that, for political sake, endanger the lives of our troops. The government talks about the military in the highest terms while they are fighting but too often dismisses them when they are out of uniform and suffering.

The demands that we have placed on our troops have grown exponentially and yet the resources, treatments and availability to service members who need help has not kept up with the times nor the need.  And that, I say, is a crime.

Of course, instead of doing something productive about it, such as pouring more money into the treatment of PTSD or investigate better ways to deal with continual deployments in a country at a constant state of war (which the US is) they decide to figure out the best way to deal with suicides is strip service members of their personal firearms. Of course they can’t just confiscate them, but they are trying to find end arounds in order to do just that.

Yes.  Nearly half of suicides of returning troops are performed using their personal firearms.  But guess what, that means more than half are not.  Instead of going about the band-aid step of figuring out how to seize firearms from servicemen we need to look into how to better treat the problem…the reasons they feel the need to end it all.  Because once it gets to that point, that service member isn’t going to go: “I don’t have my gun so I guess I’m all better and I’m not going to kill myself now”.  No, they will just find another way.

If we are serious as a country in respecting our wounded veterans then we need to do more in order to help them all.  Yes, a trooper missing a limb is easier to recognize and treatments have long been developed, I mean, you don’t even need legs to be an Olympic Sprinter anymore.

But there is no prosthetic for a broken spirit.  It is harder to see, tougher to treat, and the cost for success does not have the same visual reward as a man being able to walk again is, but that doesn’t make it any less vital.

It may not be sexy, stopping a suicide isn’t a photo op for a politician, the underlying problem isn’t a feel good story that politicians or even many regular Americans who have not served want to focus on.

Too damn bad.  These men and women, with scars that run deep into those dark places of the mind, in the recesses of the abyss that is reserved for the horrors that one cannot fully come to terms with, who, if left out in the cold may ultimately turn to what they feel is their only option for release, NEED US as a country to take this problem seriously.

No politicizing, no agenda’s, just an honest effort to help those who have given so much for their country.

I’m not psychiatrist so I don’t have all the answers.  But I do know that we are asking too much of too few for too long.

————————————————————————————————————————————

I know there are active military personnel who read my blog (It’s the only way I could possibly be this popular in Afghanistan and Iraq) and if there are any who may feel like they are heading to a dark place I say this;

There are people who understand what you are going through.   There are people who understand the demons in the darkness when you close your eyes at night.  And there are people who are willing to help.  Seek them out.  You have fought for this country with honor…please let those in this country try and help you in kind.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 9, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Happy Columbus Day and what we can learn from the American Indians left in his wake

Columbus: Lucky explorer or harbinger of genocide?

I have heard it both ways.  He is lucky because there was a big chunk of land in between where he was going from and where he was headed to that probably saved his life since he would have run out of supplies long before he got to India.  He is a harbinger of genocide because through disease and conquest the inhabitants of the new world were decimated and lost their land.

I’ll go with the first.  The second I’m not going to pin on Chris simply because it is human nature to press your advantage and take what you want.  Even later, when the Pilgrims came with the best of intentions, it didn’t take long before those who followed wanted more and more.  The American Indians, not realizing the slippery slope they were on didn’t see much of a problem at first.  Of course, eventually, if you are pushed hard enough you will push back.

But by that time, government had taken control of the colonies.

(I know I started talking about Columbus and he landed much more to the south and the Spanish Conquistadors did a lot more raping and pillaging than the English to the North but I’m gonna focus on what would eventually become the United States.)

So, the Colonies had government.  Be they the monarchy of England or the elected Republic of the States, the end result was the same for the American Indians.  Broken promises, broken treaties, and the encroachment and infringement upon lands and freedoms that the American Indians had enjoyed since time immemorial.

It wasn’t until much later, until the American Indians were better armed that they could make a stand.  Unfortunately, by that time it was a losing proposition.  The government had taken hold and its manifest destiny would “see the red man civilized” and the land subjugated.  Of course, in the eyes of the government, civilized just meant doing what the government told them to do and to stop standing up to it.

Some 600+ years down the line, the American Indians have lost a continent and must content themselves with the reservations that they managed to hold on to.  Of course, this was after a number of government promises were trashed because gold was found in a number of places earlier reservations were located.

The moral of this story, the American Indians realized too late the hunger that exists in government and even when they fought it wasn’t until they were properly armed that they stood much of a chance.

All Americans nowadays are facing a very similar predicament.  No, the government isn’t giving us blankets with typhoid, or burning our villages to the ground or allowing the near extinction of our industry (buffalo)…hmmm…or are they?

Universal Health Care is basically the government controlling our health, eminent domain can snatch up our property for whatever purpose the government demands and our industry is being taxed and crushed out of existence.

I guess there are parallels after all.

I don’t blame Christopher Columbus for the crimes against the indigenous people of the New World.  He was just a guy looking for a shortcut.  But even with the very best intentions, the repercussions that echo through history are often overlooked in the present.

I’ll tell you what though.  If the American Indians were armed as well as the European immigrants and realized what the “white man” was after, history would certainly tell a different tale.

A healthy distrust of the government is a good thing.  You shouldn’t believe everything the government says because even if it is true today, who knows how it will be twisted in the future.  Even our Constitutional Rights that were written in plain language (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED)  200+ years ago have been twisted by a government who wishes to exert more control in order to break the American Spirit.  And, as the inhabitants before Columbus can attest, it will be the second time.

A little fable about government if you will indulge me.

One day a fox was walking along the shore about to swim across the river.  A scorpion came out from the tall grass and approached the fox.  The fox stood still and wary and asked: “May I help you?”  The Scorpion replied, “I need to cross the river, would you allow me to climb on your back and swim me across?”

The fox replied: “No. When I am in the river you will sting me and I will drown.”

The scorpion countered: “If I were to do that, then I would drown as well.”

The fox thought about this and deciding that it made sense allowed the scorpion on his back and began to swim across the river.  Half way across though, the fox felt a sting in his back and he began to lose feeling in his body.  As he started to sink he asked the scorpion: “Why, now we will both drown?”

The scorpion simply replied: “I couldn’t help myself…it is my nature”

Just as this scorpion couldn’t help himself from destroying both he and the fox, so too will government do what it will out of its own nature, even if it sinks itself along with its citizens (the fox).

The scorpion should stay on the one side of the bank just like the government should be limited in how far it can go.  We must be wiser than the fox and not give into the promises of the government but rather understand it is governments nature to control but our power to limit where it can go.

History has proven the destruction that a insatiable government can produce here in the New World and unless we fight to stay armed and willing to fight to stay free, it may just happen again.

On that cheery note:  Happy Columbus Day.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 8, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Weekend Hodgepodge – Cigar Rights of America

I enjoy a fine cigar every now and again.  With that being said I find it very interesting the parallels between the right to keep and bear arms and the right, yes I said right, to enjoy a fine cigar.  I like to put cigar smoking in that whole pursuit of happiness thing.

To wit:  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How I choose to pursue my happiness should be be my own business and so long as it isn’t hurting another person directly so should it stay.  So yes, you want to ban me from smoking a stogie in the new born wing at the hospital, fine.  You want to ban me from being able to smoke one on my 100 acre ranch?  To hell with that.

Of course, just like with gun owners having to fight for their rights against gun control zealots, so now must cigar aficionado’s defend themselves from nanny state ninnies who wish to regulate and control every aspect of a persons life because for some reason, the NANNY STATE somehow in its unending wisdom (note sarcasm) knows how we should all live our lives and won’t let a little thing like liberty get in the way of their control.

The tactics for both gun grabbers and nanny staters are similar in this situation.  Regulate the hell out of the industry until it becomes too difficult and expensive to thrive.  Fortunately for the Second Amendment, we have been able to stymie a lot of the serious damage that gun control zealots would like to inflict.  Damage that would be brought on by measures such as bankrupting gun manufacturers and dealers by allowing frivolous litigation against them for crimes done by their product.  It would be like suing a car company because a drunk driver hit you.  It’s ridiculous.

But even the defenders of the Second Amendment must still be wary of bankrupting schemes such as micro stamping and the like.  Non working technology that gun grabbing zealots would like to levy with the knowledge that it would be near impossible to employ.

The cigar industry is facing a similar attack but it doesn’t get as much play since, as I stated earlier, there is no cigar amendment to stand behind.  I hypothesize that the reason for this is that if the Founding Fathers had any clue that our government would get so screwed up in the 200+ years since it was formed that we would NEED amendments to protect things like the ability to travel (flying without giving up your 4 Amendment rights to the TSA or the bureaucracy of the DMV) or the ability to indulge in vices (smoking cigars, drinking, gambling) then they probably would have mentioned something.

It just happened to be so far out of the realm of possibility that they couldn’t literally nit pick each and every instance of liberty that they assumed was obvious, and write a thousand page Bill of Rights.  And even without fathoming how messed up and overbearing the government would become they still managed to write in pretty plain language (of the time, we have since become a less literate nation regardless of how many people can read)  a few catchalls against infringements.

The 4th Amendment should protect us from having to provide our papers on demand, it should allow us to go about our business without an oppressive government monitoring every action.  The 9th Amendment pretty much states that , if we don’t specifically state a right, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but we have a limited amount of space on the page.  Okay, so they wrote it a bit more eloquently than that but that’s pretty much the gist.  Leave it to the passage of time and the twisted minds of revisionists to mess everything up.

But I digress.  Cigars.  This is just a handful of initiatives that the nanny staters would like to impose, brought to you courtesy of the Cigar Rights of America.

  • Ban on walk-in humidors, self serve cigar displays, and mail-order cigar sales;
  • Ban on all flavored cigars, that are enjoyed by legal-age adults;
  • Deface ornate, decorative cigar boxes, often considered an art form with grotesque images;
  • Ban on cigar events where free cigars (samples) could be available to legal-age adults;
  • Limits on cigar marketing and advertising;
  • Imposition of new ‘user fees’ [tax] on cigars, to finance regulations;
  • Limits on special release and small-batch cigars, due to mandates that cigar blends be submitted to FDA for pre-approval before release;
  • Limits on nicotine levels on cigars to near zero, severely impacting the flavor of cigars;
  • Ban on marketing cigar merchandise

If you would replace the word cigar with firearm on most of these you can tell how this is really just a gun control zealots wish list.

Is smoking cigars good for you?  Does it have vitamins in it?  Will it give you super powers?

No, of course not.  But do we really want to live in a country where the state dictates what pursuits and passions we are allowed to indulge?  What liberties we are allowed to exercise?

I say hell no.  How much must we suffer a Mayor Bloomberg’s dystopian dream of a government who tells you how many calories you are allowed, how big your soda can be, what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home etc.

If I want to eat a bloody red steak and wash it down with a cup of bleu cheese then dang it all, that’s my right and Mayor Bloomberg can wait until hell freezes over before I acquiesce to his tyrannical rule and his asinine standards of how I will live my life.  Big Gulps 4 Life!!!

Freedom is more than just not living in chains.

As an aside, Gun Owners of America is still running our special membership drive until Tuesday.  25% off yearly memberships using the code: vote2012  and 25% off lifetime memberships using the code: life2012

Go here to sign up today. http://gunowners.org/store/new-membership

If you want to check out more on Cigar Rights of America you can view their homepage here: http://www.cigarrights.org

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 7, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Col. West will always be a hero in my book

A little different story today.  It’s one that starts with me in the Army and ends with Allen West in Congress.

WHAT?!?

Bear with me.  Back in November of 2003 I was two years into my military commitment.  Nothing too adventurous, just a scout with some airborne wings upon my chest.  I was stationed in southern Germany at the time operating as OPFOR for mounted soldiers heading to Iraq.  Operation Iraqi Freedom was less than a year in and all ready insurgent attacks and IED’s were becoming a part of the everyday life of the soldiers and marines on the ground.

That was just a little summation of what was going down at the time when I heard this tale.

It was during my time in Bavaria that I heard a story of a Lt. Colonel that I didn’t know, go above and beyond to protect his troops.  This Colonel, who I would later find out was Allen West.  While his battalion was stationed in Taji Iraq was made aware that an Iraqi Civilian Police officer was helping to plan and carry out a terrorist attack on US Army personnel.

With time of the essence and the lives of his men in the balance the LTC West broke protocol and all political correct nonsense in order to save the lives of the soldiers in his command.  The Colonel went to where the interrogation of this rogue Iraqi officer was and demanded to know the details of the attack.

The Iraqi, Officer Hamoodi, decided he knew how the system worked and that he had nothing to fear because the American’s are soft pushovers who won’t actually do anything.  LTC West decided that, while American’s are the good guys, shaking Hamoodi’s belief in that fact could save lives.

While Hamoodi was on the ground, the Colonel removed his sidearm and fired a round next to Hamoodi’s head.  Hamoodi realized, much like the bikers did in A Bronx Tale, that perhaps he had misjudged the man he was dealing with.  He gave up the names and information about the attack.

Later Hamoodi would say that he just gave up nonsense and that there was no attack planned.  I counter that of course he would say that, no one admits to being a snitch.  The proof is in the pudding as they say.  There was no insurgent attack against American forces under the Colonel’s command until after he was relieved of duty.  LTC West was a man that was feared by his enemies and respected and loved by the men under his command.

But even the story of how he lost his command is an interesting one.

Despite the positive results from his actions and the lives he no doubt saved, LTC West understood that he broke military protocol with his actions and he REPORTED HIMSELF.  That’s right, not a single soldier would’ve reported the Colonel for his actions that day but instead of taking the easy way, covering things up and burying the truth LTC West admitted to his command of the actions he took to save the lives of his men.

The reaction was…extreme.  General Odierno, who received his first star under Bill Clinton, decided not only to punish LTC West but attempt to destroy his life.  He immediately relived LTC West of command, basically killing his career, then demanded that LTC West retire immediately forfeiting his pension that he was literally 3 days away from qualifying for or face court martial and 11 years in Leavenworth Prison.

When political correctness runs amok and image is more important than the lives of soldiers you get Generals like Odierno while Colonels like West get the short end of the stick.

But LTC West would not be cowed and refused to take either options and decided to fight. Facing someone who would not simply back down and by the time the story broke, Odierno had been backed into a corner after shooting himself in both feet.  Odierno backed off the Court Martial and pursued an Article 15 hearing instead.

LTC West received a $5000 fine and was allowed to retire with a full military pension with no lose of rank.

During the proceedings LTC West was asked if he would do anything differently if he could do it over again.  The response is all I need to know about the man:

“If it’s about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

Your men would follow you sir, if you led they would certainly follow.

Now, why did all this come up recently.  Because until about a week ago I never connected the Colonel and the Congressmen as being the same guy.  I knew Rep. West was a Lt. Col in the Army but after so many years I had just never thought to connect them both.

Oddly enough, the reason I know now they are one in the same is because in Rep. West’s reelection campaign his opponent, Patrick Murphy, has brought this up.

Of course, he doesn’t actually bring up what happened, he speaks in nefarious generalities that West at one point faced court martial and retired after an Article 15 proceeding.

Well, in my book Allen West his a hero who put his men’s well being ahead of his own career.  What Washington DC needs is MORE men like Allen West.  Not some sniveling brat who would call LTC West a war criminal while he himself was out getting busted for public intoxication and fighting with a police officer.

If you are in Florida, I urge you to help Allen West win his re-election campaign.  http://www.allenwestforcongress.com/

In our latest GOA grading we have given him an A for his time in Congress protecting your Second Amendment rights.

In case you were curious about LTC West’s military accolades they are as follows:

22 years of service

Lt. Col rank

Served in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom

Bronze Star

Meritorious Service Medal – 2 oak leaf clusters

Army Commendation – 3 oak leaf clusters – 1 valor device

Army Achievement Medal – 1 oak leaf cluster

Master Parachutist Badge

Air Assault Badge

 
5 Comments

Posted by on October 5, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Louisiana looks to get strict

And while the state isn’t going to metaphorically take a ruler and start busting knuckles they are going to try and strengthen the 2nd Amendment.  This November, the voters of the Big Easy will go to the polls, not only to elect their representatives, but also to change their constitution with regards to the Second Amendment.

As it stands now, an activist judge in Louisiana can all but strip the residents of their rights if that judge views that keeping and bearing arms is unreasonable.  Due to a ruling in 1977, any measure of gun control would be held constitutional so long as it was “reasonable”.

The opening for a liberal attack on the Second Amendment on those grounds is absurd.  One could point out that since you cannot carry a firearm in Illinois that it is REASONABLE to make the same prohibition in Louisiana   Since Mayor Bloomberg has all but outlawed firearms in New York City, a judge could point to that being a REASONABLE measure in Louisiana.  Even while New York City and Illinois are completely unreasonable places with regards to the 2nd Amendment, they could be used as fodder for a liberal judge’s agenda.

Basically, with the lowest level of judicial restraint “legitimate purposes” an activist liberal judge could go right up to the point of a complete ban.  They could rule that while you could have a firearm, it needs to be disassembled; the pieces individually locked away with its own individual lock and can only be unlocked with written permission by the local authorities.

I grant you that that is the far reaching extreme but that is what precedent was set in 1977 when the courts ruled:

 “The right to keep and bear arms, like other rights guaranteed by our state constitution, is not absolute. We have recognized that such rights may be regulated in order to protect the public health, safety, morals or general welfare so long as that regulation is a reasonable one.” State v. Amos 343 So.2d 166, 168 (La. 1977)

I emboldened the word “morals”.  That means that a judge who is MORALLY opposed to guns can rule based on their own bigotry and ignorance.  The Pandora’s Box that can be opened due to such a low level of judicial review is frightening.

Furthermore, the Louisiana Supreme court affirmed a lower courts ruling in 2001 that the state had the power to restrict the Second Amendment for “legitimate purposes”, the weakest of level of judicial review.

So, we find ourselves with Louisiana, whose courts ruled that gun control is not only legal but easily attainable with little interference from that pesky little Constitution thing.  This is why New Orleans authorities were allowed to jack boot their way through the city after Hurricane Katrina beating up old women and stealing their guns.

What this referendum in November will do is rewrite the Louisiana State Constitution to read:

“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed.  Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

Now the words “strict scrutiny” is where many pro gun supporters fly off the track.  “All this is the doorway to gun control, this is terrible, shall not be infringed etc.”

Yes and no.

GOA does not support the need for such actions like this referendum because we view the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as the immutable and absolute law of the land with regards to the keeping and bearing of arms in America.  Therefore, no state constitution has the right to infringe upon that in any way.

With that being said, the courts have yet to rule in such a proper manner and this is a step in the right direction that severely cripples the gun control crowds ability to do an end around the Constitution via a liberal activist Louisiana judge.  As it stands right now, Louisiana does not have any pretense of a right to keep and bear arms.  Not when one judge who is morally offended by guns and thinks that denying them to the people is reasonable can do so..

Strict Scrutiny is shy of Shall Not Be Infringed but not by as much as you’d think.  Strict Scrutiny, as it relates to the legal process, flips the script on gun control.  Where now, Second Amendment supporters have to prove that gun control is unconstitutional, strict scrutiny dictates that gun control is by default unconstitutional and must be proven otherwise.  And even if it can be, it must be so narrowly tailored to a single point that it cannot be used with a wide brush to otherwise infringe beyond its initial purpose.

While we wish that states governments and the federal one as well, would just adhere to the Second Amendment as an absolute right, until they do it is important to keep moving in the right direction and this referendum in Louisiana does just that.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 4, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Third Party Candidate Gary Johnson

Because I have been receiving a lot of chatter about Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson i thought I would discuss the topic of him and third party candidates in general.

Let me start off with two facts

Gary Johnson is a supporter of the Second Amendment.

A meteor could crash into the Presidential debates tonight, Biden and Ryan can just inexplicably be there too, both tickets wiped out and Gary Johnson will still lose the election to 2 dead men.

If you have no intention on voting for Mitt Romney then don’t.  Go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson, I’m not even going to say you wasted your vote because it is yours to do with as you want.

What I won’t do, is help re-elect the most dangerous threat to the Second Amendment in my lifetime.  Barack Obama WILL NOMINATE NOTHING BUT GUN GRABBING ACTIVIST JUDGES.

That is the truth.  How do I know it’s the truth? Because he has all ready done it.  His two appointed Supreme Court Justices (on top of Appellate court justices) are chomping at the bit to get another crack at infringing upon the Second Amendment and all they need is one more vote.

Mitt Romney?  He’s not a champion of the Second Amendment, hell, he even was all Massachusetts on it while he was Governor, but he is someone who can be reasoned with.  Barack Obama will take your guns away from you, it is his goal and he believes passionately about it.  Romney?  I don’t think he really cares one way or the other.  If the worst thing he does is nominate another Anthony Kennedy to the court instead of an Antonin Scalia then it is still a world better than getting another Sotomayor or Kagan.

Gary Johnson has the same chance of nominating a Supreme Court Justice as I do.  You don’t see me endorsing myself as a write in candidate even though Johnson and I have the same odds of winning.

If you cannot stomach voting for Mitt Romney than don’t.  If you cannot in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney then vote your conscience. Our conscience won’t let us endorse him on Second Amendment grounds so we won’t.

My conscience, on the other hand, will not do anything that will help Barack Obama, enemy of my Second Amendment rights, to be re-elected.  Nor will I sway anyone in order to help Obama be re-elected.

If all we can do in the Presidential election is let the chips fall where they may then so be it.  What that means is that we will just work that much harder ensuring that we send the most Pro Gun House and Senate we can to Washington to limit the amount of damage that either major candidate can do to the 2nd.

And before anyone starts firebombing me for not understanding the need to change the 2 party system, I am a Libertarian.  And even more so I ran for political office once.  And I have heard so many times, you’re a third party, you can’t win.  They were right…sort of.  I ran for Mayor of a city of 300,000.  Of course I wasn’t going to win.  If I ran for city council, school board, mayor of a smaller town or the like first, I could probably shake enough hands and kiss enough babies to get elected there.  Then, make a name for myself and move up.

To all the people who bemoan the 2 party system and want to elect a third party candidate president you have to WAKE UP.  Start small and build up.  The Libertarian party has a ton of local and state office holders across the country and they are growing.  Eventually when they get a Governor of a major state they may have enough clout to put on a serious challenge for the White House.  But until then, they run candidates to inform the populace that they exist.

While that is a good and proper thing to do, I will not strengthen Obama’s position by suggesting people vote for someone who cannot win.

If you really want change, take all this fire and energy you have once every 4 years and volunteer on a campaign on an off year.  Get a Libertarian Sherriff elected, someone on your town council.  It will not come overnight, it will not happen in this election, and if we don’t stop Obama’s policy that start with striping away the 2nd Amendment and ends who knows where, it may never happen.

Do I want to see a Libertarian President?  Yep.  I also want to see Constitutional Carry recognized nationwide as well, but just because I want it doesn’t mean I don’t have to work for it and build it up.  You just don’t get what you wish for without laying the ground work first.

Only one of two men will win the Presidency this election.  Neither are friends of the Second Amendment but that makes the urgency of sending the most Pro-Gun Congress back to Washington all the more pressing.  Obama is beyond reason…Romney, perhaps not.

That is why we need your help now more than ever.  We want to get involved in as many campaigns as we can across the country.  We all ready have scored impressive victories during the Primary Season and now we wish to continue pressing the advantage in November.

Use the Discount Code:  vote2012 and life2012 to receive 25% off annual and lifetime memberships today at

http://gunowners.org/store/new-membership

It’s a small price but can go a long way.

 
12 Comments

Posted by on October 3, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Protect your gun rights…now is the time

The next month may very well determine whether we continue to enjoy our gun rights as protected in the Constitution … or whether we will lose them for generations to come.

That’s not grandstanding or fear-mongering…I am very serious.

This next election is extremely crucial, and Gun Owners of America is working as hard as it ever has for our gun rights.

If you’re familiar with GOA, I’m sure you’ve either received an email alert from us or seen our postings on Facebook.  Maybe you’ve seen our Executive Director debating gun issues on Fox News or visited our website and blog.

GOA has been fighting the battle to protect our Second Amendment freedoms on many fronts for the past 37 years.  We are a determined, grassroots organization that does not tolerate politicians compromising the core beliefs of the Constitution.  We push for an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and we lobby at the local, state and federal levels. 

We examine the voting records of candidates and incumbents and try to decipher — as best we can, after examining their public records and statements — what they truly believe in regard to our gun rights.  Do they really stand for the Second Amendment, or are they just “going with the flow” for the sake of political expediency? 

All this research is necessary in order to help American voters make informed choices on Election Day.  It’s hard work … it takes long hours to accomplish … and it can only come about with everyone’s help.

You see, in the end, what America needs — if it is going to maintain the liberty it has enjoyed since its founding — is for people to stand up and fight for that liberty.  I’m not just talking about the politicians who work in the halls of Congress or in the legislatures across the country … I’m saying that “We the People” need to fight for our freedoms. 

So if you are reading this — either here in America or somewhere stationed abroad — then realize that I am talking to YOU!

This election will probably decide whether the Second Amendment will be scratched out of the Constitution or not.  I assure you, I am not using hyperbole.  This will be the most important election in your lifetime.  Let me explain why.

 President Obama has openly expressed his disdain for the right to keep and bear arms.  He has been derisive to my home state of Pennsylvania saying only bitter people cling to their guns.  He has told Sarah Brady that he is working on banning firearms “under the radar.”  He has pushed for the UN Arms Trade Treaty that, if ratified, will challenge America’s sovereignty in regards to firearms. 

Finally, and most disturbingly, he has appointed two Supreme Court Justices who openly lied before Congress when they stated that they believed in the Second Amendment. In fact, in her first opportunity to rule on a case involving the Second Amendment, Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. 

The Supreme Court now stands at 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment.  We are one liberal gun-grabbing activist Judge away from losing our right to keep and bear arms forever.  That is not hyperbole … that is not blowing things out of proportion … that is a fact.

Mitt Romney has not been a friend to the Second Amendment. I am not going to tell you otherwise.  But Barack Obama is a hostile enemy of our gun rights and a coward who hid behind closed doors and did things “under the radar” for four years because he did not have the moral character to say how he really felt to the public. 

Of course, all that changes if Obama gets reelected.  No longer will he have the voters to fear, and he will be free to implement the rest of his anti-gun agenda.  You can be sure that for the next several weeks, prior to the November 6 election, he won’t tell you what he really thinks about the Second Amendment.  He won’t tell you how anti-gun he is … but I will.

So, we have two candidates for President, neither of whom GOA shall endorse because we only support true believers in the Second Amendment.  As stated by Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, the Chairman of the Second Amendment Task Force in Congress, GOA is “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington, DC.”  We are not going to tell people that a politician is good on guns when he’s not.  Ain’t gonna happen.

As I said before, our research team digs deep to find out the truth of every federal politician’s record, working long hours and dissecting through the manure that gets shoveled around the halls of the Capitol.

We will endorse and support candidates for the House and Senate who will help pass serious pro-gun legislation and, in doing so, we will minimize the damage that either candidate for President can do to the Second Amendment. 

That’s why we need to have a majority of pro-gun supporters in the Senate. 

That’s why we need to stop gun-grabbing, activist judges from being confirmed.

And that’s why we need your help.

With one month to go, we need the resources in order to get the word out across the country that voters need to support true believers and not just political chameleons.

I’ll be blunt.  It’s October 2nd.  From now until October 9th — if you join GOA at gunowners.org — you will receive a membership for 25% off … and that even includes the purchase of a Lifetime Membership. 

Including today, there are exactly six Tuesdays remaining until the nation goes to the polls to determine the future of the Second Amendment in the United States.  

I know times are tough and, that with this economy, we constantly hear appeals for money.  But the time has come to stop the greatest attack upon our liberties today.  So please help us to defend the Constitution for ourselves and our posterity.  

Go to gunowners.org/store/new-membership

Purchase Membership Amount

There are 2 Discount codes depending on which membership you choose.  

For an annual membership:  vote2012

For a lifetime membership:   life2012

*IMPORTANT- You must enter the discount code to have the discount applied

As I said, this election is important and we need your help.  We are one Supreme Court vote away from losing our rights forever.  Help us make sure that doesn’t happen.

 

Tony Oliva

Director of Media Relations

Gun Owners of America

 

Image

 
9 Comments

Posted by on October 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 357 other followers

%d bloggers like this: